Grace vs Work

Why does God bother doing miracles at all? God lets some people see a miracle in their lifetime, but most don't. And some people see a miracle and believe, and others don't. So if someone sees a miracle and doesn't believe, it will be to their condemnation (at the Last Judgment), but if they believe, they will be saved. As for those who don't see and yet believe, they're the most blessed. (Jn 20:29, which is what I believe Jesus is implying here.) So there's some people who if they see a miracle they'll believe, and then there's those who won't even if they do see a miracle. Then there's the people who don't need to see a miracle to believe. My concern here (for right now), isn't the 2 kinds of people at either end of the spectrum -- the people who will believe no matter what and the people who won't believe no matter what, nor is it the people who will believe if they see a miracle (and then see a miracle -- good for them, they got what they needed), but the people who would believe if they saw a miracle, but never see a miracle. And I really don't know what percentage of the population falls into any of these 4 categories. I can only say with certainty that the percent who fall into the "believe but have not seen" category must be very small, as even Jesus said (the narrow and broad roads). A militant atheist once told me that if he were to see the parting of the Red Sea, he would believe. But will he ever see a miracle? How dramatic would it have to be? How many people are like pharaoh and his army, who didn't believe though they saw the parting of the Red Sea, and even rushed into it to kill and capture the people of God, as if God had parted the Red Sea especially for them so that they could make use of it for their own nefarious purposes! So what this atheist was claiming was that he was in one of the middle 2 categories. So what are we to make of this? On one hand, Jesus said that if the people of Sodom had seen the miracles of Jesus, they would have repented (Mt 11:23-24). On the other, Jesus said that if the rich man's 5 brothers would not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither would they believe if a person were raised from the dead. But if the Sodomites would have believed, why did God not give them the means to be saved? As St. Paul said, " ... with the temptation [God] will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (I Cor 10:13) Unless we say that they will be saved, "but only as through fire". (I Cor 3:15) We don't know. Jesus only said that it would be more bearable on the Day of Judgment for Sodom than for Capernaum. Could God not have sent a prophet to them as he did to Nineveh, who did repent, when they heard about Jonah and the great fish? On top of this, the Sodomites saw at least 2 miracles -- one, they were struck blind by the angels, and two, their city was destroyed by a rain of sulfur and fire, which must have been pretty darn dramatic. ("But only as through fire" -- no pun intended.) In any case, based off of what Jesus said, I'll put Sodom in the category of people who would believe if they were to see a miracle, but never see a miracle. But back to the original question, which was -- why does God bother doing miracles at all? So now we're going to go back to the first category of people who don't need a miracle, but who end up seeing one anyway. In the other categories, we can say that God performs miracles for a utilitarian purpose -- to get people to believe. In this category, they already believe, so why do some believers see miracles and others don't? This is the reverse of the other question we looked at above, in which people who need a miracle don't get it, whereas here, people who don't need a miracle do. So who can figure out the mind of God, or discern his will or plan?

What does it mean "to grow" in grace? It's God who affects grace, but somehow it seems like human will is involved in this. (II Pt 3:18, 17 [note "stability"], 1:3, 5-8, 10) I was talking about this with a friend once, (though not specifically in a Christian way), and we came to the conclusion that there's 3 influences at work here -- nature, nurture, and a third mysterious element, which, upon second thought, I can't really say is an influence -- it's what's being influenced, and I would have to call it the will. But who can say which way the will will go? Why does one person follow truth, and another one settles on succoring their pride? Can even God see into this secret place, or understand it? Didn't Jesus "marvel at their unbelief"? (Mk 6:6) I'm not trying to challenge God's omniscience here, but only want to show how very, very deep this secret place must be. But like all things involving the UQ, there's a feedback loop between the spiritual and physical, so while grace influences free will, free will also influences grace, which aptly explains why Peter wrote as he did in the verses referenced above.

Grace, though totally undeserved, is something to be admired for. How could a chosen one of God not be admired and honored? It is because God has honored them that they don’t deserve it (as when we say, “It’s an honor”, not “I deserve this.”) This holds true for all gifts. We honor the one who is naturally beautiful, not the one who has worked for it by getting cosmetic surgery or putting on make-up. We honor the child prodigy and natural genius over the one who obviously has reached the heights of academic achievement only through much effort, or by taking energy pills, or because they had enough money to hire a lot of tutors. And better to be the world’s greatest athlete through hard work and natural ability than by pumping steroids. All the true innovations of humans have come from inspiration, some divine spark, not merely from slaving away and trying.* (Though it’s true that when God gives someone a gift, they are also filled with passion, which causes them to obsessively work or train hard, but even all this ultimately flows from the initial gift, which is from the grace of God.) Now let me repeat, “Grace, though totally undeserved, is something to be admired for.” Now isn’t this strange?Best EX: "And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” (Lk 1:28) & "For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48)

The Annunciation by Botticelli

​*In the creative process, one of the most vital steps, what I would call the most vital step, is to relax and do nothing.Why doesn't God give us things that are good and that we want? For example, I wish I could forgive people for being evil; if there was a button I could press that would magically bestow this gift on me, I'd jump on it. I'd jump on it even if I had to sacrifice a lot for it. Then why do I languish in my misanthropy, year after year? Didn't Jesus, after all, say that the Father will certainly give the Holy Spirit to those who ask? (Lk 11:13) related to different parts/levels of the will

Jesus paid a tax the lazy way by getting it from a miracle fish. Isn’t this wrong? (Mt 17:24-27) I want to put this in a larger context, otherwise you may not understand what I really mean here. As far as I can tell, this is the only time in the gospels where Jesus made use of his powers to make life easy for himself. All other times, he performed miracles for the benefit of others. I suppose you could say that walking on water was for his own benefit, but in that case, we can't really know why he decided to do that, whereas here, there's at least a utilitarian reason of getting a coin without having to work for it. (Well, except for sending out Peter to go catch the fish, which I don't count.) But come to think of it, the only reason I think it's wrong is because of the example Jesus set -- which was that he lived a totally human life, bore the brunt of this lowly existence, and didn't take any short cuts, even though he could have. He even refused the pain killer they were trying to give him on the cross. In fact, he "turned off" his "God powers" so much that he didn't even know what they were trying to give him til he tasted it. ​ So if Jesus thought it was good to live as humanly and naturally possible, instead of as divinely and supernaturally possible, why in this one instance did he not?

Why must we suffer in order to earn higher virtue? Why does God not just give us the grace to do this (become more virtuous)? In fact, God does give us the grace, so why must we work for it as well? What is the relationship between God’s supernatural grace and our natural work? (see also Suffering and Mortification)Very similar to the question above (the one with the II Pt reference). This question however, focuses on the unique purpose of suffering in the divine plan. We might very well say that suffering is the divine plan. After all, there will be no suffering in the next age, at least for those who have pleased the Father in this age. Obviously, this is a time of testing, but why must we be tested? Indeed, we must all learn and grow. Learning and growing are physical things. God doesn't learn and grow (though Jesus in his humanity certainly did). But even in the next age we'll be physical. And so it seems right to me to say that even in the next age we'll learn and grow. Even if we'll be made perfect, we can always be made more perfect. (I once heard it argued that if you can be made more perfect, then you're not truly perfect, and while at the time I disagreed, I now see the point, since it's true that only God is truly perfect, one of his perfections being that he's incapable of being made more perfect.) I can still agree with my former self, however, so I'll continue with my surmisings. So in this age and the next, we are/will be physical, and as part and parcel of that, we will learn and grow. After all, I don't think we'll ever be omniscient -- that seems reserved for God alone, nor do I think we'll ever be as loving and merciful as God, God always loving us more than we could ever love him or render him due thanks. But learning and growing are not only part and parcel of being physical, but also of suffering. However, in the next age, there will be no suffering (except for those in hell). That kind of suffering, however, has nothing to do with learning and growing, but, as Peter said, "What credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure, but if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God". (I Pt 2:20) And as Paul said, "Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief leads to death." (II Cor 7:10) So we see that there's 2 types of suffering, 2 types of sorrow. One type of suffering has to do with learning and growing, the other is just suffering, and I don't think that God has ever approved of suffering just for the sake of suffering. However, this is something that the devil definitely approves of, because he's so twisted. Unfortunately, too many people, even religious people (and I think nonreligious people have learned this from the religious people) think that God is all about suffering just for the sake of suffering. I myself am plagued by this form of faithlessness, not believing that God is truly good. Isn't it so easy, after all, to think that because someone is dying of cancer, that God must want them to die a horrible death? We must be more knowledgeable than this, however, and not succumb to this temptation. Was it not Jesus who asked, "Will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Lk 18:8) So when I say that suffering is the divine plan, I obviously mean godly suffering, not worldly suffering, although, no doubt about it, there is in fact tons of worldly suffering in this world, in fact, I'd say most of the suffering out there is worldly suffering. So then how can I say that suffering is the divine plan, if by suffering I mean godly suffering, but in fact, most of the suffering in the world is worldly suffering? After all, even in the afterlife there will be suffering, and while in this life we have both types, in the next the only suffering will be worldly suffering. So we have an interesting split here. In this life, we have learning and growing, and we have suffering, both godly and worldly, and we have learning and growing in connection with godly suffering. In the next, we will only have either learning and growing, with no attending suffering, or we will have only suffering, without learning and growing, depending on where you end up. So we see how this life acts as a sort of filter for the 2 types of suffering, as Jesus said that he would have his angels sort the good from the bad fish. (Mt 13:47-50) So now that things have been more clearly delineated, we ask again, why in this life must we suffer in order to attain perfection, but in the next, perfection -- and ever increasing perfection, will be attained without it, and also, if this suffering is necessary in this life (by which we also mean the whole divine plan revolves around it), why is so much of it really the useless kind? The former question is quite different from asking why God would send people to hell, or why would he make people whom he knew would be destined for hell. In that case, we're asking about the useless kind of suffering, which is a good question in itself, but is covered elsewhere (on the Pain and Suffering page). The latter question, however, is quite related to the second (worldly/hellish type of suffering). The bible gives us great comfort in assuring us that "for those who love God all things work together for good". (Rom 8:28) In this sense, there's no such thing as worldly suffering for one who perseveres to the end. So this splitting, this filtering, actually comes much earlier than the afterlife. As for one who chooses to suffer the way Satan chose to so long ago, he is "condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (Jn 3:18) This is why we see such a correlation between all the useless suffering in this world, and the useless suffering in the next, since "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many." (Mt 7:13) So we see that everything depends on where we end up. That however, is determined by how we live here below -- whether we live by faith or not, since, "without faith it is impossible to please [God]." (Heb 11:6) But the question stands -- though we see now that not all suffering is the same or has the same purpose (which is definitely progress), for the good kind of suffering, why is it good? Isn't suffering bad? Even the bible says the same thing: "For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Heb 12:11) If discipline is so good, why does it have to feel so bad? Another way of putting this is from an article I read by Fr Ron Rolheiser, in which a woman asked him (I'm paraphrasing), "If God wants us to be good, why did he make us so that we want to bad?" In other words, why does our human nature contradict God's plan for us? Why did God put us in this impossible situation? It's a good question. It's another way of looking at it, and I think I'll take a stab at it because I liked the question so much. The first thing I thought was that, actually, not everything we want is bad. Right away, I could categorize our evil desires in 2 categories -- one inherently bad and the other circumstantially bad (although I'll say right now that it's really not this simple, but I'll get to that later). Notice that different people want different things. To take an extreme and clear example, what makes a serial killer happy is quite different from what makes the rest of us happy. The typical person has no desire to kill people just for the fun of it. Now I did read a book which was quite shocking in that it claimed that, actually, most people have, at one time or another, truly desired to kill someone, though this is generally out of revenge, not for no reason at all, the way a serial killer does. (And besides, most people usually don't act on their murderous desires, whereas I'm amazed by the way serial killers are so whole-heartedly devoted to killing people; quite frankly, I'm amazed that they even find the time to do so, since apparently, it requires an awful lot of planning.) Anyway, though it's true that we all want and desire evil to some extent, not everyone gets a kick out of hurting people out of pure malice. So we see that there's a spectrum, and it's our duty to try to move along as far to the angelic part of the spectrum as possible during our lives. If being bad just for the sake of being bad is what makes your day, then you seriously have a problem. I really hope that most people grow out of this, since I think that unfortunately, most kids are actually like this (I'm talking about all the teasing and bullying that kids love to inflict on each other for absolutely no reason.) Then there's the second kind of evil desire which I think even saints struggle with -- the desire for things which aren't bad in themselves, in fact, they're good, but which we all want to indulge on. Examples of this would be -- wanting to live a comfortable life (which includes trying to avoid pain, suffering, discipline and sacrifice), materialism, gluttony, laziness, etc. (These last 3 examples aren't bad in themselves in that as long as we moderate our possessions and spending, pleasure and leisure and rest, there's no harm. The trouble is that we don't know when to stop.) Now let's go back to where I said that things aren't so simple as what I laid out above. This is because I don't want to reduce this second kind of evil desire to a mere moderation problem. Indeed, moderation would take care of this kind of evil desire, but though one can force oneself to be moderate (in practice), that doesn't erase the (inner) desire. I can't help but liken it to trying to drown a man. You keep forcing him under the water, and he keeps popping up and struggling for air. He just won't stay down, and neither will our desires! It's a constant struggle. This kind of sin is so easy to slip into, because it can be done very passively, without directly inflicting harm on anyone, and yet it can still swallow us whole! There's no better way to slide into living a small, ugly life. Indeed, most of the world actually thinks that there's no problem with living such a life. Not only that, most people actually aspire to do so! And here's where the Rolheiser question comes into play. Why can't we be moderate? Why do we not want to be moderate? Why is enough never enough? I can only chalk it up to idolatry. That's right -- worship of the physical, although this worship of the physical can take on very abstract forms -- the desire for fame and prestige, for example. A truly spiritual person has no interest in these things. They can enjoy the good things in life without falling over. Instead, they can keep their balance. This isn't a simple negation of evil desires, but a filling up in their place instead with spiritual desires and discipline. Your heart has to be filled with something -- clearing it of one thing but not filling it up with a better thing isn't going to get you anywhere for long. So this is why this isn't just about moderation -- moderation is itself a question of orientation, what are you oriented towards. Moderation without orientation just feels unnatural and unbearable. However, this too, like the first kind of evil desire, comes on a scale. And likewise, you can slide up and down the scale. So it's not true that we should feel hopelessly attracted to evil and hopelessly frustrated with our natural selves. Practice makes perfect. I remember when I was in highschool struggling to ignore the TV whenever someone in my family was watching it. Now, with practicing shunning TV and being selective about what I watch, I've found that my standards have gotten higher -- I'll only watch something that's truly of high quality -- I mean, really special, not just anything. Likewise, even controlling one's diet over years and years will cause you to favor higher quality foods. Before, pretty much everything tasted good to me. Now, chocolate doesn't taste that great, and eating a meal without any veggies feels really gross. Again, with practice, forgiving others, being patient and humble, is not so difficult as when you first start out. You may find your boiling point getting higher and higher. My point here is, what's desirable or undesirable is really quite relative, unlike the way the Rolheiser question makes it out to be. I'm not saying it's a bad question -- it's a great question, but it's a great question because I think it accurately portrays our own frustration with ourselves and the struggle of being a human with all-too-human desires, even the temptation of half-ways blaming God for "making" us like this. But still, the question stands -- why is discipline painful? Because we ourselves are filled with evil. Why would evil want to be excised? Has evil ever cheerfully left without putting up a fight and begging for mercy? So the real question, as always, is the problem of evil, which is really the question -- why are we evil? But who can understand evil? Can even God? Does God understand, relate to why Satan made the decision he did? For how could he really understand unless he could relate, and yet, can God relate to evil? Jesus was tempted, in fact the bible says, "in every respect ... as we are" (Heb 4:15), but whether this counts or not, the theologians can debate until the end of time. But I could go at this from a different angle -- the everything-has-a-price angle, as well as the why-does-punishment-work angle. First, the everything-has-a-price angle. This implies that the price you pay (for anything) is going to be painful to some extent. If you want to be healthy, that's not going to happen as you relax on the couch eating potato chips. No pain, no gain. Want to learn a language? Your brain is going to hurt. Want your marriage to succeed? Your pride is going to hurt. Bigger things require bigger sacrifices. They're more expensive. I'd say becoming a saint is probably the most expensive thing out there that you can try for. Only a few make it to those heights. It's enough to make you feel like you should just give up now. It requires constant and steady self-discipline at all times, every day, for years and years. Even an athlete that trains 8 hours a day still has the other 8 hours to relax. Not so with the saint-in-training. However, like staying fit, learning a language, (happily) reaching your 40th anniversary, or training to be a world-class athlete, the would-be saint hopes that it'll be worth it. You just don't get something for nothing. If you could, Jesus wouldn't have had to die for our sins. So that was a very expensive thing right there. And even this no-free-lunch rule is something God has to obey. As horrible as it was, yes, he had to go through it all in order to pay the price. So you see, there's just no way around it. However, he did it because he thought it'd be worth it. "...let us run with endurance the race set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." (Heb 12:1-2 [continue on to v 12 for more about discipline and suffering]) But continuing on, anything that's worth having is worth paying/suffering for. Now let's think about this more deeply here. What if something was worth having, but it wasn't paid or suffered for? It reminds me of a story I once read about about a woman who was a maniac and because of this, when her mother died, she wasn't really that sad. I think she even acknowledged on an "objective" level that this didn't make sense, and perhaps she even admitted that she should have grieved more, but she just didn't feel it. (I mention this same story in a different context elsewhere on the site, though I don't remember where.) So let's imagine a world like this, where everything comes cheap. My first thought is that, people just wouldn't care -- about anything. It's like if you forgive a cheater too easily -- they take that as license to do it again. So it's kind of weird that it almost seems as if the value (of anything) lies not so much in itself, but it in its price, which I suppose it also related to rarity, but perhaps that's just a tangent. Well, I think we have to flesh out this thought experiment some more. To take the most extreme example, what if no one cared about surviving? Like no matter what you did, you would never die? You could eat a hundred burgers a day, and never die of heart attack. You could drag yourself through a cesspool, or nuclear waste, and nothing would happen. At this point, you come to realize the need for rules, which I cover elsewhere on the website (under the Reality section), so I won't go into it here except to say that I now see that these things are linked -- suffering, discipline, and having rules and consequences. Suffice it to say, perhaps there would be no reality without consequences. Never mind physicality actually being physical -- it seems that that's not even enough -- what you really need is consequences. Consequences is what gives meaning to this world, what makes reality. So is it really an unfortunate by-product that discipline entails suffering? Like many things in philosophy, yes and no. No, because it's necessary, yes because it's an evil. I guess that really doesn't solve the question, but at least it shed some light on it. At least you can see better why it is necessary, as Jesus said, "... it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" (Mt 18:7) Despite all this, we can still take comfort. We know that all suffering is temporary (unless you go to hell), so at least we know that God is anti-suffering, something that many people might consider shocking! Yes, there's suffering in this world, but in the next, with God, all suffering will be over, which is actually kind of weird, because you'd think that if suffering is so good for you, why make it stop? Furthermore, and more importantly, how do you get things like rules, consequences and value (all things derived from suffering, at least in this world) in the next, without suffering? This is the flip-side of the question -- a different way of asking the question, while still asking the same question, but perhaps illuminating it in a different way. I think I'll save this for the end, because it's so big, and I don't want to interrupt what I've been doing with this so far. Now before I forget, I'd also like to connect this topic (suffering and discipline) to levels of the will, since what we're talking about here is temptation. It's interesting how the human heart is so divided. While most people don't struggle with the temptation to be serial killers, as I said above, I think even saints struggle with indulging the flesh, something which is so widely and easily available. If anything, one must make a special effort not to live indulgently. But the bible could not be clearer -- though the following verse specifically refers to widows, in actuality it applies to everyone, and it's amazing how harsh it is (for something most people would consider a small thing) -- "... she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives." (I Tm 5:6) Rather, the opposite is enjoined -- "[continue] in supplications and prayers night and day". (I Tm 5:5) Wow, those are high standards, and something that I myself have not attained to! So while I wish I could truly "pray without ceasing" (I Thes 5:17), instead I daydream. On one hand, (hopefully) we want to be better people, and more concretely, we want to become a better person each day. But there's all sorts of things weighing us down and getting in the way. Life is one big war against these things. The inner struggle is real. I think now's a good time to bring up the extreme austerity followed by monks, since I've been reading the Philokalia(Love of the Beautiful [the greatest spiritual classic in Eastern Orthodoxy]), which might also be called The Love of Monks (this is a joke). But seriously, while there's a lot to admire in the book (lots of inspiration for self-denial, humility and patience), I have to wonder if the rest of the stuff's so good (here I'm talking about all the fasting, vigils, celibacy, going out of your way to be physically uncomfortable, never talking to anyone -- even your relatives, and other general extreme behavior), why doesn't everyone become a monk? Is a monk really holier than someone who lives a normal life? So far, I haven't been convinced that they are. Actually, from my understanding of the Philokalia, I don't even think the monks in it would think that monks are holier than any other non-monk devout person. So why go out of your way to be a monk? These are people who take mortification to an extreme, and that's where I wonder if that's an inherently good thing. However, I should really talk more about this in depth in the hermitism section (which is actually in the Philosophy, not the Theology section). I just wanted to touch on it because it is related to the question, and you know, theology and philosophy is all about making as many connections as possible. But I do want to contrast this with a quote I read by a Catholic saint (sorry, I can't remember his name, and whose quote I can only paraphrase), in which he said that it's enough penance to just endure the miseries and humiliations of daily life, without going out of your way to find more. As I always tell myself, "Life is full of pain and suffering; why suffer if you don't have to?" something which I don't think the Philokalia monks would approve of. So there's this range of thought in the Church and who's to say who's right?So now let's explore this from the why-does-punishment-work angle. (You can read more about this question under Ethics, for example, are rewards more effective than punishment?) The connection here is "Why does suffering work (in producing character)?", suffering and punishment often being equivalent. It's interesting that punishment works, because often times it doesn't. As even the bible says, "Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him." (Prv 27:22). If it always worked, perhaps I wouldn't care to know why it works, since it'd be more obvious, almost like a natural law, and if it never worked, then what would be the point, except for the worldly/hellish kind of punishment discussed earlier in this question? In fact, it actually kind of bothers me that it does work. This is because when people repent because of punishment, it's so selfish. It'd be nice if people would repent because they realize that they've hurt someone, or offended God (these are outward, non-selfish reasons), but when this is slow in coming, punishment can be very effective. The Church actually applauds repentance due to fear of punishment and accepts it as true contrition -- not that it's as good as contrition due to one of the outward reasons listed above, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. After all, one of the hallmarks of being a psychopath is a feeling of invincibility -- that one is above the law, legal or moral, and that they'll therefore never be caught. Quite illogical, I know, but fear of punishment is actually a good sign that a person realizes that they can possibly be held accountable, because they realize that there's nothing special about themselves, have no sense of entitlement. So evil-doing goes hand-in-hand with not being in touch with reality. The Psalms are replete with examples of the this kind of thinking among evil-doers, always telling themselves that God doesn't see, that God doesn't care about justice. "He says in his heart, 'God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it.'" (Ps 10:11) From this we know that fear of punishment requires at least a modicum of humility. On the other hand, it's obvious that punishment can also instill this humility, if it was lacking. This is where the magic (grace) is at. At this point, I think it'd be helpful to jump to the larger question -- "Why can suffering produce character?" It's really a cliché that we only grow and become better people if we suffer. I personally don't believe this is true. I don't see why a person can't strive to be a better person despite living a secure and happy existence. Despite this, I'm willing to concede that suffering and punishment often do serve their purpose, and I don't mean merely as a deterrent, but as bringing real transformation inside. Another way of putting this is in the context I outlined above about the 2 types of suffering -- that punishment can turn what was originally just worldly suffering into godly suffering, which begs asking -- why? I guess the most obvious way of going about this question is to look back at times when punishment worked on me. Why did it work? On the most basic level, you may not even realize that what you're doing is wrong. For example, saying something insensitive, getting a bad response, and then realizing that you really could have said that a better way. This is a more "superficial" type of learning because in this case, the person was already willing to do the right thing -- they just didn't know what the right thing was. Now I don't want to say that this person is completely innocent, because there's a reason people don't realize that what they say is insensitive, or that you can say something really hurtful with good intentions (and good intentions don't count). It's because they're not truly being humble, looking at things from the other person's perspective. Or they may not have learned that some people are more sensitive than others and that if you don't know the person well, you should veer on the safe side. That, however, comes with experience and practice. The kind of learning that I'm really interested in is the kind that takes place in the person who knows what's right and wrong, but flat out doesn't care. In this case, probably the best way to get this person to learn is to make them suffer what they themselves have caused others to suffer. People are naturally more empathetic towards people they can relate to and have solidarity with. For example, famous philanthropists often start giving to and supporting a cause that they themselves have had experience with or suffered from, when before it wasn't on their radar and they didn't care. (Perhaps they develop some disease and then begin charity work for coping with or curing that disease.) In some ways, I've often thought that this was actually a type of selfish turn for the better. If it hadn't been for their bad experience, they would have just gone on as usual, not caring about anyone except themself. But even after they do care, they still care in the particular way that they suffered, but there's all kinds of suffering out there, some more urgent than others. Nevertheless, this is, as I said earlier, a turn for the better. Punishment can also work by causing people to realize that they don't really want what they thought they wanted. This, however, can get more complicated (I'm talking about levels of the will here). For example, a person may discover after attaining success and wealth that it didn't make them happy after all, as they had believed. This is called learning things the hard way, instead of the easy way. We've all grown up hearing that money doesn't buy happiness, money can't buy you love, and that should be a lesson learned, but more often than not, it's not, which is an interesting question in itself. Here, we have the levels-of-the-will question applied on a societal level. That is, society is schizophrenic -- on one hand society tells you to value love, relationships and generosity over materialism, power and status, but on the other, it seems that that's not really what society's teaching, because that's not what people are rewarded for following. Women devoted to taking care of their family and children at home are looked down on (even though family and relationships are supposed to be important). Instead, a career woman will feel confident that boasting about her achievements at work will win the admiration of all those around. Telling people that you're a housewife is definitely a conversation killer nowadays. People, unfortunately, are pretty stupid. They more readily believe what they can see than what they can't. People can see big houses, nice cars, flashy titles. Seeing something invisible like love, caring, trust -- well, that takes a different kind of eye to see, a kind of eye that not everyone has or developed. So now back to learning things the hard or the easy way. Punishment is for learning the hard way. If you don't learn the easy way, the hard way just might do it. Going back to our example, at first a person may find wealth and status to be exhilarating, but as time wears on, they may find that it's not really what they were looking for. At this point, the person has a choice -- they can look for a better alternative, or they might slide even deeper into despair. I think this is in fact what happens to a lot of Hollywood celebrities. A lot of them take drugs, and many have died from overdoses, even suicide. People wonder, "Why would someone who has it all be so desperately unhappy?" But this is the general population wondering from their haven't-learned-the-hard-way-yet perspective. Even though they keep hearing the oft-repeated mantra "Money can't buy happiness", it is, in fact, what everyone still believes. Why else would people be perplexed by the behavior and choices of these people who are supposedly living it up? Again, people are stupid and believe what they see. A shiny, glamorous life is all too easy to envy. Believing that this person might actually have personal demons, issues and problems, things that cannot be readily detected, can be hard to juxtapose to this awe-inspiring image of perfection. Some people who have learned the hard way make the right decision, realize that it's true that their old ways and old beliefs are untrue, and start searching for better alternatives. Others get stuck in a rut. Who really knows why some people go one way and other people the other? But all of life is like this. Every married couple has their disagreements. They argue and then -- what? Some come through. It's painful, it's disagreeable, but they figure out a way to make it work. This is punishment and discipline. Others go through the punishment and they just keep heaping it on themselves more and more. They stew, blame, and can't get through the fog of negativity enough to find a solution. The vicious cycle then continues. Successful couples turn problems and pain into godly sorrow and repentance. Unsuccessful couples turn what could have been a learning opportunity into worldly, hellish suffering. In this way, emotional pain is a lot like physical pain. The whole point of physical pain is to scream at you that something's wrong and you better take care of it quick. If it wasn't painful, unbearable, people would just ignore their problems until it's too late. Likewise, emotional pain is a way of alerting people that they better change something quick. People who cope by learning to tune out, suffer passively, hope that things go away by themselves, drinking, taking drugs, or self-medicating in the thousands of ways available for doing so, are doing themselves a disservice. These are people who care more about immediate comfort than long-term sustainable results. However, part of the purpose of punishment is to combat exactly this -- to get people to value the long-term over the short-term. So again we have to ask, how does this happen? Before continuing, I can see that this is leading to what you might call a "philosophical dead-end". What I mean is that after pulling up all sorts of reasons and explanations, in the end, nobody can really figure out why punishment/suffering works for one person and not another, because that's ultimately dependent on the individual person's choice, which, as I've said elsewhere, is something we can't see into. So while this is frustrating, it doesn't mean that we can't delve into all those layers of reasons and explanations that come before we hit the rock bottom of the mystery of free will. So punishment partially depends on a person's own moral disposition. As the bible so often says (like in Proverbs), fools just don't learn. That's the hallmark of the fool. They don't learn because they don't want to learn. Punishment also works to make the much-needed shattering of the sinner's fantasy world. Take for example the person who commits adultery. Adultery is all about fantasy and escapism. Unfortunately, most people can keep up this state for as long as they don't get caught or troubles in their adulterous relationship don't crop up (ie, real life barging in on their fantasy world). What I'm saying is that the human capacity to be detached from reality really knows no bounds. In the case that the adulterer is caught, real life comes crashing down around them. This makes the double life (living in 2 different worlds -- the real world and the imaginary one) untenable. They realize they have to choose. In the case that the adulterer realizes that their paramour isn't as great as they thought, this is akin to the person who realizes (the hard way) that what they thought they wanted wasn't really what they wanted. At this point they may decide that their spouse is who they really want to be with. Of course, at that point, it may be too late. All sin has its foundation in believing in lies, in not seeing reality correctly. So punishment (which often begins with being caught, but not necessarily) acts as the shattering of these erroneous beliefs, which could very well be so deep that a whole system of thought must be done away and replaced with something entirely different. Going back to everything-has-a-price, punishment also serves to induce regret, that is, to convince the person that the price paid wasn't worth it. Just do a Google search of adultery and you'll see that tons of people regret cheating. It's really too bad that they had to learn the hard way. A part of me is horrified by adultery and adulterers -- another part of me feels horrified that these sorry sinners can't undo what they've done. It just goes to show that learning the easy way isn't very fashionable. While people make all sorts of excuses for why the easy way doesn't apply to their particular situation, real life comes to bite them in the butt and punishment shows that, no, they really aren't an exception to the rule, deluded and self-serving as they were. But the biggest frame that I can think to place this issue in is justice. It is justice that requires suffering. This is why everything has a price (the price being paid is what justice is all about). For a related topic, you may want to check out my question on the nature of the suffering of the damned, which I'll put on the Hell page.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.